Talk:Blue Colosseum Room/Archive
I'm gonna use this room for the annual HEMP Convention! If anyone wants to join just put your name on the list -- Thnx! Marcus Villanova WLP 15:52, August 14, 2010 (UTC) * Marcus Villanova * 16:00, August 14, 2010 (UTC) * ... :Are skeptics allowed too? 15:55, August 14, 2010 (UTC) ::Sure anyone who joins gets free Columbian Cannabis and your choice of flavored Wrapping Papers! ! But yes you can come! Marcus Villanova WLP 15:58, August 14, 2010 (UTC) :::Great, I hope you are prepared for the hordes of addicts that will storm the stands; let us hope there will be some folks arround who are not to high to speak in a meaningful way. 16:00, August 14, 2010 (UTC) ::: Any More Attendees? If not the convention shall take place August 22-28! Support HEMPPAC! If you still want to speak sign your name here, me and Yuri have already planed to attend! *Marcus Villanova *Yuri Medvedev * Martha Van Ghent ** Yea! Walden members will be there! Marcus Villanova WLP 18:59, August 21, 2010 (UTC) * I want to enter too Harold Freeman 13:00, August 22, 2010 (UTC) * BastardRoyale 15:56, September 14, 2010 (UTC) *... Convention September 12-18 Okay so the Offical HEMPPAC convention will be held the week of September 12th through the 18th. I think we have six attendees if you want to join just sign your name on the list above and we'll squeez you in.The Convention will be selling small ammounts of Pot but so no one can buy more than 2.5 Oz.. There will be nighlty speeches on the leaglization of Pot or smothing every night. That's why if you sign your name to the list first you will speak if you don't sign you can speak but we'll see. We will also be selling pharnapolia, like pipes and rolling papers and such. We will also be selling the message of HEMPPAC. Okay and finally here is the list of speakers each night *12th - Yuri Medvedev *13th - Martha Van Ghent *14th - Jon Johnson *15th - Harold Freeman *16th - Andy McCandless *17th - Oos Wes Ilava *18th - Marcus Villanova Also if you want to change your date just tell me here okay. Thnks have fun at the HEMPPAC convention. Marcus Villanova Walden 21:04, September 8, 2010 (UTC) :All right, I can kick off. I'm expected to write a small piece that explains my view on the issue, right? 05:59, September 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Sell pot at a convention? Come on guys... 08:16, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :::I wont be buying; I'm just present to assure all sides are heard. This should be a convention and not a promotional campaign. 09:27, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :::@Jon - Thnx for joining. :::@yuri- Your opinion can be good or bad :::@Dimi - Fine no Pot, Aregino? Marcus Villanova Walden 21:28, September 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::Supporting these kind of initiatives is my goal for the future! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 22:07, September 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::Okay so no prob! Good, Sunday it begins guys to write a short speech and evrthing, thnx! Marcus Villanova Walden 19:44, September 10, 2010 (UTC) ::::Cool with Oos in it we're booked full. Marcus Villanova Walden 22:35, September 15, 2010 (UTC) September 12 - Yuri Medvedev Dear people here assembled, I was asked to be the first speaker and that is a huge responsibility. My speech will set the tone for the entire convention and therefore I will approach this professionally. Since I'm sure we will hear a lot of pros and contras in the days to come I would like to speak about the whats and the hows. Supporters of legislation will probably defend the recreational use of Cannabis; I can't imagine anyone defending drug abuse. But what about that - often thought defendable - recreational usage? Why do people use it? A lot of models start with a psychological need, a way to escape reality. But aren't such users victims? And wouldn't they want to be able to go without? In fact drug usage often has a counter-effect, leaving the problems unsolved and even worsening them. Of course the freedom defenders are already pointing towards the masses who use marihuana and don't have any issues they might want to run from. Seems convincing, not? I don't think so. How did these people get into the habit? They didn't smoke it one day because 'they simply liked to'. There is nothing simple about it; they were socialized into it! People smoke pot and their body reacts like 'man, what is this shit I'm taking here?' They are however learnt to like it, they define it as a pleasant experience because they are expected to, not just by their social surroundings but also by themselves. In short: A group of people uses pot to forget their troubles, they are victims. Another part uses it and creates motives to defend the usage afterwards, but there are no objective reasons. When Marx stated religion was like opium he perhaps didn't know the comparison worked in both ways. Drugs are a way to 'keep the masses in line' and thus hemp is the so maniest obstacle towards the emancipation of mankind. I thank you all for your attention and hope I have made an impression, either good or bad. - 07:55, September 12, 2010 (UTC) :Is that than pro or contra JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 12:39, September 12, 2010 (UTC) ::I think it is pretty obvious, no? It is an 'obstacle towards the emancipation of mankind', a societal problem. 12:41, September 12, 2010 (UTC) September 13 - Martha Van Ghent Dear fellow Lovians, Although a fervent Waldener, I am - like the previous speaker Prime Minister Medvedev - convinced that legalizing drug (ab)use would cause more trouble than it would solve problems. It is my moral duty, however, as a Waldener, to look into our "right" to consume marijuana and narcotics. As a libertarian I believed we had all rights, except those we could no longer have because it damaged the rights of our neighbors. People can have bananas whenever and however they like, they can take in way too much sugar without the state interfering, they can kill themselves on cafeine, even. It's their right to do so. It's your right to choose to eat healthy; it's your right to choose not to eat healthy. Right? As an "enlightened Waldener" I don't think so. Not anymore. This whole "it's my right to do so" thing is ignorant to one huge thing: society. If you hear this speech, or if you have heard of the words "pot" or "marijuana", you are part of this society. By being part of this society, I believe, you take up a tiny piece of the responsibility of it. Your moral choices affect society. I can easily think of ten ways in which legalization of soft drugs (or hard drugs, if you're a hardcore user) would endager people. You know all of them. Think of what people who are "out of their mind" can do. That's what drug abusers can do too. An objection often heard is that using narcotics could be allowed only at home, and would therefore be harmless. I, as a Walden feminist, I believe we couldn't be more far off the truth. Most accidents happen in or near our homes. Also, it is in homes that we keep what we cherish most. Children, elder people, family and friends. The thing with drugs is that they make people do things without thinking, without consideration, without them even wanting it. And I know not all people are that easily affected by narcotics, but I'm not about to take this risk. In my opinion, society ought to minimize risks, and maximize thought. Thanks. - Martha Van Ghent 13:32, September 13, 2010 (UTC) : No matter what Go matha good speech! Marcus Villanova Walden 20:06, September 13, 2010 (UTC) September 14 - Jon Johnson Dear Lovians I've been searching for the correct words to open my speech, however that's difficult. My opinion on the legalization of drugs of all kinds is a very simple one: don't! I can understand tough that in certain circumstances, I mean for medical goals, some drugs can be used, and I will fully support the use in those situations. Drugs in Lovia, or the legalization of it, would make our country paradise for, and excuse me for the word, 'junks'. For them junks of all countries it would be a nice place here. This but also the fact that drugs is one of the largest killers on earth make me sure of my opinion never to legalize this This might be a very short and hard speech, but it's time to understand that drugs and so aren't made to be used as a consumption article Jon Johsnon :The essence: "For them junks of all countries: drugs is NOT destined for mass consumption". You just hit the spot man! 05:50, September 15, 2010 (UTC) ::The theme for this convention is set, I notice 05:55, September 15, 2010 (UTC) :::True..."Pot heads are stoned as Commies give enraged speeches! "! Side note: I got a brand new fucking competer - windows 7 and it's totallly sexy! Marcus Villanova Walden 21:13, September 15, 2010 (UTC) ::::what kind of computer? Apple, HP ...? 17:21, September 16, 2010 (UTC) ::::I got a really ghetto computer - E-machines, and new printer from cannon. Marcus Villanova Walden 20:21, September 16, 2010 (UTC) September 15 - Harold Freeman Dear attendees As a liberal I am always confronted with the tension between personal freedom and a safe society. The liberal in me wants to trust that people can decide for themselves how far they can go when using drugs. But if we give that freedom the amount of addicts and drug-related crimes will increase. People do know they should not do drugs, but it always starts with a small amount. "It is okay', they say, "this is not much so it wont do any harm". Before they know it they are addicted and try to use the liberal ideas of personal freedom to defend their usage. The central question that all liberals in this debate need to ask themselves is: are there cases where we need to protect the people from themselves? I personally feel that a tolerant policy towards drugs would cause more harm to society then such a freedom is worth. I do however not have the answer to what approach is a favorable alternative. Harold Freeman 14:11, September 15, 2010 (UTC) :Even the classicals do not favor drug legalization . I thought we were a progressive nation, but turns out we're actually a leftist nation 14:34, September 15, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, after many years of hard working on schemes of indoctrination we are finally getting some result. Moehahaha... (sorry, just being silly) 16:46, September 15, 2010 (UTC) :::It knida saddens me to see this it reminds me me of america (and as you see that was an insult) America is leftest sadly even when democrats are in control, and they fuck it up! (sorry inside joke) And republicans at times are even more liberal!!! Anyway I like how everyone is active so I can't be that made. Marcus Villanova Walden 21:16, September 15, 2010 (UTC) ::::American politics differ from European in a strange way. In the US, Democrats are progressive, but they can't be because their support base also includes big businesses. Republicans on the other hand, are a mix of libertarians who want to keep government out of their lives and legalize every damned thing, and conservatives who want to abolish everything to protect their families no matter what. That's weird to Europeans. Martha Van Ghent 09:23, September 16, 2010 (UTC) :::::the fact that there's so many powerful lobbies in Washington is the real problem. a politician can't do a thing without the lobbies and PACs on his side... 17:21, September 16, 2010 (UTC) ::::::True, sadly, do you live in america Andy? Marcus Villanova Walden 20:20, September 16, 2010 (UTC) :::::::@Andy: You're right about those lobbies. Same problem with the huge amounts companies donate to political campaigns. It really is a dirty business. 20:25, September 16, 2010 (UTC) :::::::: PAC's aren't like that here. More or less orginizations that campaign for someone. Marcus Villanova Walden 20:30, September 16, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::I still don't like the whole PAC thing. By corporate campaign funding (through PACs), top money-turning businesses are overrepresented in US Congress. Wall Street bankers give to candidates, elected candidates give them position and the policy of their preference. I don't like it. 20:34, September 16, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::See, I never analize it like that beacuse then they can get voted out of congress, like everyone did in the primaries on tuesday! Literally every fucking incubment, ceo-related or hated member was voted out of office. But yes it's wrong, then again america is capitalist, Lovia isn't and even if they did they'd be exposed and brought to justice. Marcus Villanova Walden 20:37, September 16, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::They were indeed. But then, on the other hand, they're being replaced by those so-called "tea party republicans". I'm not sure what to think of them. They remind me of demagogy and populism (in the Continental European sense of the word). 20:40, September 16, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::True, I hate the Tea Party. Screaming the N-word at black representatives after they approved the minor health care bill. What it really is, is a really orginized KKK. Marcus Villanova Walden 20:46, September 16, 2010 (UTC) ::::::@marcus: in massachusetts! 08:12, September 22, 2010 (UTC) September 17 - Oos Wes Ilava Dear people, Legalization of cannabis is one of the worst things we could possibly do, unless we want our country to be ruled by people addicted to cannabis. Legalization of cannabis will make this dangerous drug spread all over the country like a contagious disease. A common reaction is that legalization of drugs will help to get the situation under control, that's nonsense. It'll only be easier to get the drugs. Legalization or not: people that really want to use it, will use it. The only way to prevent cannabis from forming a major obstacle in our society is through repression. We need to have high financial penalties. The state gets money for damages done by the users of cannabis and it'll deter people. People which are not going to use the drug as long as it's illegal to use it. God made hemp for ropes, not for making people devilish. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:37, September 17, 2010 (UTC) :I don't entirely agree on the repression part. We need to entirely ruin producers, importers and dealers. Bust their asses and sue them big time! I belief it is different with the users which I consider to be victims, either of bad company or neglecting parents. We should for example allow forced take-up in severe cases and monitor all known users. Prevention is the way. 15:40, September 17, 2010 (UTC) ::Well, of course we should punish dealers, producers and importers more than users. But users are guilty too. You can always choose: get the stuff and use it or leave it alone. If there ain't no users, there ain't no work for dealers, producers and importers and vice versa. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:51, September 17, 2010 (UTC) ::This convention is about HEMP lighten up ! I'll make a good mood on saturday! Marcus Villanova Walden 19:57, September 17, 2010 (UTC) September 18 - Marcus Villanova ''Hello fellow attendees to this the first annual HEMPPAC Lovian Convention. Feloow attendees through out the week you have heard people say that Leagalizing Hemp would be the worst. To them I say no it isn't. Alcohal can ruin a life but that isn't banned, and people still drink it. Texting while driving can kill people but they still do it. Hemp kills, Alchoal kills. So what's the point? Hemp does less. Hemp at home is good, if not hopfully we can comprmise and hopefully leaglize Medicanal Cannabis. Thank you Marcus Villanova Walden '' :Cannabis for medicinal purposes should be tolerated. It isn't as dangerous as morphine which is used rather frequently. 07:04, September 22, 2010 (UTC) ::note: alcohol isn't banned, but IS regulated by a judge/MOTC Jefferson bill. so, youth can't booze around all day. that's what we need to do with dope, but more strict. 07:59, September 22, 2010 (UTC) :::Its like with the gunlobby: guns don't kill people, people kill people! So Hemp doesn't kill people, people kill people! BastardRoyale 10:09, September 22, 2010 (UTC) ::::True, that is why people don't need guns (or hemp). If the state imposes restrictions on the means then the results can be altered. 11:13, September 22, 2010 (UTC) :::::@Andy: That's right. :::::@Yuri and Bastard: That's right. Human "nature" (cfr. Sartre who says there's no human nature) ís - in my opinion - sort of corrupted, that is: (1) attracted to certain "evils" that restrict our freedom or our capacities, and (2) often unable to free ourselves from them without help. 11:41, September 22, 2010 (UTC) ::::::And that is where society steps in, organized through the state. Although I must agree with Sartre too. 'Human nature' is the sum of some reflexes (biochemical mechanisms etc.) and identity constructed by society. There can thus not be a human nature primary to society. 12:20, September 22, 2010 (UTC) ::::::okay. Marcus Villanova 20:43, September 22, 2010 (UTC) Criminal Law Whoever made this sure didn't read the Federal Law. There is NO law that even regulates Cannabis (or any other drug besides alcohol, which doesn't even count), let alone it being banned. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:21, November 1, 2011 (UTC) :I would like to disagree on that. Because it is practically impossible to ban every single crime in legislation on a wiki, one needs to define crime otherwise than 'this which the law forbids'. After all, the Lovian law doesn't forbid killing I believe. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be able to put to trial... 08:23, November 1, 2011 (UTC) ::Yes it does. Every Lovian person has the right to life. It depends how you interpret the laws, and there isn't anything that could let you interpret drugs as illegal. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 10:59, November 1, 2011 (UTC) :::Okay, good way around for the murder thing. But that counts for the drug use too: Lovian legislation concerning alcohol and tobacco are relatively severe. This is because the Lovian legislator doesn't take kindly on these substances. It can be expected the legislator is even more severe in its opinion on more harmful substances. The existing legislation on legalized drugs says something about the legal status of drugs without mentioning. It's like common law. 14:41, November 1, 2011 (UTC) ::::I guess you could interpret it that way, but it's definitely implied and a law needs to be passed for drug use to be banned. A fair judge would agree it is not banned because in general saying x is banned because y is banned doesn't work. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:12, November 1, 2011 (UTC) :::::I agree if we'd be judging a sixteen year old for smoking some pot. But I would imply the above principle if I were to judge a notorious criminal for dealing heroine. But you're right, a law ideally needs to be passed. 08:17, November 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::: Fun trip down memory lane! Jason Rogers 00:35, May 6, 2015 (UTC)